[erlang-questions] Misultin EOL
Fri Feb 17 23:42:14 CET 2012
I think a comparison between the Java app servers is not really accurate.
The reason I say that is that most have commercial support. Tomcat might
be the only one without commercial support, but it's the reference
implementation and has plenty of books about it. As far as I know with all
the other popular ones there is some company who's willing to support it.
I think that's a big difference here between comparing Java app servers
and Erlang servers. Misultin is completely open-source with one man
supporting it and no commercial support. I'd much rather see fewer servers
with better support and possibly commercial support than many with little
I do agree completely that Erlang needs a consistent servlet-like API. It
would certainly help a lot.
I'd be keen on simple bridge if the Erlang guys would just come out and say
if they support parameterized modules or not. If they don't, just get rid
of it. What's the point of having something in a language if it's not
going to be supported (but that's a different topic)?
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Tim Watson <watson.timothy@REDACTED>wrote:
> On 16 February 2012 22:05, Roberto Ostinelli <roberto@REDACTED> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Jesse Gumm <gumm@REDACTED> wrote:
>>> Not to state the obvious or anything, but Misultin is open source, so
>>> someone could always step up to the plate and become the *official*
>>> There will still be efforts to support Misultin: Chicago Boss uses it,
>>> and barring some serious arguments against it, I'll still be adding
>>> misultin support to Nitrogen and SimpleBridge for the upcoming 2.1.0
>>> So while it's unfortunate that Roberto is stepping away from Misultin
>>> development, that doesn't mean it's necessarily dead - someone can
>>> always take over.
>> hi jesse,
>> please don't suggest that. while i cannot avoid someone doing so, i could
>> have kept maintaing misultin myself. as i said, it has been a hard decision.
>> my intent here is to avoid duplication of efforts, both for the
>> contributors of the community (often reporting the same bugs in both
>> repositories) and for the developers, which now have an hard time in
>> deciding which way to go.
>> i just wanted to clear the way for a single webserver library, and cowboy
>> seems to have much more developer time to actually maintaining it.
> Personally I don't understand why having a single library is so great,
> although I respect your decision to do this and am very grateful for all
> the hard work you've put into misultin to date.
> In *java-land* I like being able to choose between Tomcat, Jetty (for
> embedded stuff) and other commercial options too. I don't see why it's a
> bad thing at all, although I would *really* love it if Erlang had just one
> API for building standard web applications (a la servlets, but obviously
> more 'erlang-ish' in flavour) and then interesting stuff like Chicago Boss
> can be built on top of it.
> Personally I'm not keen on simple bridge because I don't like
> parameterised modules, but in every other respect I think it's a laudable
> effort. If we could standardise on an API - and god knows, I *really like*
> the one in Cowboy - then I personally think that would provide more benefit
> than having 'just one implementation'. Personally I don't think having just
> one implementation is the answer though.
>> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions